mr2mk1g

Any thoughts on using a combo of the above as a camera suit? I don't want to sacrifice forward drive but I also don't want to use a bootie suit. (I'm specifically thinking of using the O2XS camera jacket + Birdman pants it it makes a difference to anyone). Cheers

naaaa - you should have just finished that with "now... would you like to start with fusion or fission?"

Could you give us a hand here and let us know if this is simply for a debate style class where you are simply trying to win the argument for the sake of learning how to debate or are you actually trying to convince people that skydiving really is actually safe in real life? If the former, we may be willing (and probably perfectly able) to help you. Learning to debate a position which is apparently untenable is a valuable skill... I still remember my first - I successfully argued that cutting down the rainforest was a good thing and necessary for the preservation of the world's climate. Trying to convince people that skydiving is actually safe is probably a good test of that skill... because it definitely isn't safe. If the latter however... you probably realize already from the posts above mine that skydivers aren’t going to help you lie to people about this.

I'm currently trying to come up with something similar. One of my ideas is maybe to use two/three press studs. The added advantage being that any line snag would probably just rip it right off.

Chaplain Rev. Mychal Judge was killed when struck by a jumper as he paused to give the last rites to a dieing firefighter. I've heard estimates of 200 jumpers that day.

hahaha, and the award for "Misinformed Man of The Year" goes to...

Holy shit - that should be in the forum description!! That's the most succinct and accurate description of the SC I have ever come across!

I have a device which costs about the same as an Ipod and is virtually the same size as an ipod and yet I can: Watch full length movies on it's built in screen, Record TV exactly like TIVO, Play those shows back whenever and wherever I choose, Output those movies and TV shows onto anyone's TV, in broadcast quality, wherever I happen to be, Download the CF card from my D-SLR straight onto it through it's built in CF slot, Brows and zoom into those photo's on it, Store data on it to move huge files from one PC to another, Show people my skydiving edits and photos on it, And finally listen to plain old MP3's, either with earphones or through its built in speaker as well as do all the other Ipod style things such as create play lists on the fly etc. There's even a model above mine which yes, does actually let you check your e-mail as well as use it as a full PDA and create word/excel docs etc... but then that costs a little more than an Ipod so wouldn't really be a fair comparison... but it's still the same size and plays MP3's. I'm not saying the Ipod sucks or anything, it's fine - I just don't really think it's really possible to defend it from being called slightly "limited" when compared to some of its direct competitors. I do think that the only reason it's as popular as it is is because it's advertised extremely heavily and looks really cool... but not because it actually outperforms everything else in the market.

the line in from my MP4 player... Specifically though I guess show 32 from Stump and Dave at www.Skydiveradio.com... allong with several other gigs of stuff.

I remember that too. I also remember walkmans started coming with ear defence switches which prevented the music from peaking over a certain db level. That was because someone tried to sue over those. I don't think the proposed lawsuit has any reasonable prospects of success; in fact I'd go as far as to say it is an absolutely ridiculous claim founded only on stupidity... well that's for the UK anyway... no idea about the US. My hearing's fucked from shooting and skydiving... my use of an MP3 player certainly comes way down on the list.

If the CCI makes the call to put the load up and he turns out to be wrong about the weather meaning the plane has to come down with no one getting a jump then I have not paid and would grumble to myself if required to do so while understanding that I chose to get on the damn plane in the first place. If the CCI says to us - "I think it's too cloudy, I will put the plane up but if it's a no jump you don't get a refund" then I have either taken the risk myself or scratched off the load. Under these circs if I come down with the plane then that is my problem and manifest get's to keep my ticket. I've seen both happen at numerous different DZ's and feel it's a good way of working it. So long as everyone knows where they stand either approach is perfectly acceptable, it's where people are suddenly surprised by a ruling they weren't expecting (or had been led to believe was not the case) that things get a little unfair.

Man, that sucks. Heal fast dude.

good job you enabled multiple options.

IMO it is the best by far of the three mags I get (BPA, USPA and Skydiving). And at £16 for 12 issues (1 year) it costs about half a pint per issue! You'd be stupid not to. (ps - get the standard shipping; I do and from posts on here I know I often get mine well before some US jumpers! and I'm saving $20 in the process)

Brown has written one book. The other three were exactly the same story with slight changes in the characters and settings. I enjoyed them all, I have to admit it... but by the end I just couldn't shake the feeling that all he'd done was randomize some of the words from his first effort.

Bingo!

Not being able to gear-check yourself fully (with ease) or have others gear-check you. Not putting your legs through the leg straps and only discovering when your pants start to tear on opening... (that's not quite as far fetched as it sounds... I was on the DZ once when someone did just this with their birdman suit... harder with pants for sure but if you can think it, someone will do it).

You better hope the site owners have a damn good defamation lawyer and very deep pockets. Looks like a great way to get into massive amount of debt to me.

Two votes of relevance to this issue were taken at the AGM. As you know, a vote was taken on Ludwig's proposal which was passed. The other noteworthy vote was one to approve the BPA accounts for the forthcoming year which must be agreed by the membership in order to be valid. The accounts predicted no rise in the insurance element of the BPA membership policy and that is the basis on which they were approved by the membership. The problem was that the insurers subsequently advised that the implementation of Ludwig's proposal would mean a £20-£30 per member increase in premiums as it is not possible to discriminate between German and other EU nationals when deciding who is allowed to jump at BPA DZ's. As a substantial rise in the premium is required, the insurance change can't go ahead this year as the membership voted to accept accounts which did not include an increase in premium. As for why this problem was not looked into prior to the AGM can probably only be addressed by council members.

Same thing. If she withdraws consent he can't do anything with the embryos. Not only does the law provide perfect clarity, it does so with complete gender impartiality. Those were the rules they both knowingly signed up to when they started down the sorry road.

Me thinks you don't quite grasp the concept of IV fertilization...

Yup, it could have been done, as well as a couple of other options that were open to the couple; they just weren't done. My guess was the NHS simply didn't offer the couple the other options as no one thought this would be an issue, though I never did find out for sure. Shame really.

It did. The Child Support Agency would go after the father for money irrespective of any agreement reached between the parents as to the non-payment of maintenance.

The only problem is he consented to fertilization knowing that if he removed his consent at any time implantation could not go ahead. This fact effectively distinguishes it from comparison with natural fertilization. It's a sad story with no completely right answer. It's a pity there was not a way for both parties to "win" because as it is there only seems to be losers under the circumstances. I actually worked with this case about 4 or 5 years ago when I was with the Legal Services Commission. Not an easy one to deal with I tell you.